Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Science

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Management and Science Institute, Colombo

Management and Science Institute, Colombo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources except those by the same company. Appears to be purely promotional UtoD 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Improvements to article quality and sourcing are always welcome regardless of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

AfDs for this article:
List of chemical compounds with unusual names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the previous deletion discussions (dating back to 2004), there were comments that said this article should be kept as long as the problems are fixed, including some that said the "Other" section should be removed. It's now 2025, and there's still tons of unsourced entries and the "Other" section is still there, and it has a "multiple issues" tag with items dating to February 2022 and August 2017. This list is also fundamentally unencyclopedic, given that it provides no information other than that some people find the names unusual, and just because there are sources does not mean it should be included; see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. All the promises have failed to be lived up to; time for it to go. It can always be recreated at any time once the problems are fixed. 123957a (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the nominator. I don't think this is significant and what constitutes unusual is not really defined unless we're saying anything not recognized by IUPAC which is an incredible number of compounds. It's normal to give chemicals memorable or even "weird" names because systemic nomenclature for large molecules is only useful for computers.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussions. Suggest we should start listing these at WP:PEREN after the 5th deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I know you actually agree with the previous discussions, but I'd like to remind everyone here to not vote "keep" solely because previous discussions ended in keep. Thanks. 123957a (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: While this isn't the worst list I've seen by any stretch, its criteria for inclusion are inherently subjective, culture-dependent, and frankly silly: "Some names derive legitimately from their chemical makeup, from the geographic region where they may be found, the plant or animal species from which they are isolated or the name of the discoverer"...how is that unusual? That's how newly-discovered species and minerals have been named for centuries. I can see this list having use as a fun trivia exercise to introduce people to chemistry, but that isn't what WP is for. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens, and the nominator could start cleaning up the article. Christian75 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's been tried. It hasn't worked. Also, most of the entries don't have a source and are just one Wikipedia editor's personal opinion of what is unusual, which is WP:OR. 123957a (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian75, sure, but according to wikipedia policy the burden is not on the nominator to improve an article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This just a childish collection of trivia. Virtually all chemical names are unusual in the sense that (mistakes apart) no two chemical compounds have the same name. Athel cb (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Might those in favour of keeping this list explain how this requirement is met here? TompaDompa (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment references from the 5th nomination: "There are several reliable and independent sources listing these as chemical molecules with silly names. See "Molecules With Silly Or Unusual Names," by Paul May, published by Imperial College Press, 2008, ISBN-13: 978-1848162075. See also "Storyville: Molecular scientists have a word for it." The Independent on Sunday, Feb 1, 2004 by David Randall. He also finds amusing "Curious chloride" and "Moronic acid" from the Bristol University list. In many cases, the names were selected to be amusing or whimsical. A ref specifically saying that "arsole" has an unfortunate silly name is [1] "Chemical Cock-ups: A Story of How Not to Name a Chemical Compound Created" BBC, 13th April 2006. Then they in turn cite the Bristol site. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes fun of the silly name of Moronic acid at [2] in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Another reliable and independent source listing some of these as having silly names is [3] "The New Book of Lists: The Original Compendium of Curious Information"(2005) By David Wallechinsky, Amy Wallace, page 203. Any entries which are not citeable to a reliable source which says it is a silly or unusual name can be deleted by the normal editing process."" Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the above by Christian75 is convincing. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Some of the comments in the last week imply a potential merge target, but none was given. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lyza

Anthony Lyza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly unremarkable other than a few published papers on a largely niche topic (tornadoes/severe weather). By this stretch, every meteorologist (especially many professors in academia) who author papers should have Wikipedia articles, which isn't the case. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hate to say it but I agree that they just don't meet the bar of notability. I think instead of making new articles on meteorologists we should, as a project, work on improving the quality of existing articles; see the dreadful state of Ted Fujita, for instance. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also say that the USA Today source doesn't mean anything for notability in my eyes. Lyza was brought on as an expert to explain the individual study about the same topic covered at EF5 drought. This is, in my eyes, as routine as coverage gets - especially his qualifications being described by USA Today as simply lead author on the new study about the EF5 tornado drought. It would be different if the article was specifically about Lyza, or if Lyza was described as being top of his field or otherwise academically vital. Departure– (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - enough sources to justify notability.
WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several secondary reliable sources besides academic papers reference or interview/quote Anthony Lyza and his works, including the New York Times and many other articles: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Clearly passes the bare minimum of WP:PROF and WP:BIO, especially since the US government even posted he is a tornado “expert”. WP:PROF says if a person passes any of the listed items, then they are notable. The first point of WP:PROF is “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” That seems clear, given the tons of sources discussing Lyza and his work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS gives 167 cites. Normally 1000+ cites is required for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: Oh! That is what you meant by not many GS citations. Most meteorologists use respective country-based academic publication societies, rather than GS to find sources. For example, in US is the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Just by looking at the AMS-website metrics alone for the 2025 paper that Mr. Lyza was lead author on ([12]) show 7281 full text views. AMS does not keep track directly of who cited the paper, only records of downloads and views. That paper has over 7,000 views just since January 2025 (it was released January 23, 2025). Hopefully that helps. AMS contains probably 80% of the meteorologically published papers that are often cited in textbooks or by other meteorologists. This is one of those fields of science where GS is actually not the most used/useful measurement tool. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are evenly divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No Just some quotes and mentions. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Only "[...], Lyza says" type of coverage. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Tony Lyza was the field coordinator for the project’s first year of data collection in the southeast. This is not significant coverage. ✘ No
Yes Yes No No significant coverage of him. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Not a single mention of Anthony Lyza in the video. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Per my analysis, the sources presented in this discussion do not contain significant coverage of the person in question, hence he does meet WP:GNG which states that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NACADEMIC states that an academic is notable if The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Additionally, he does not meet the rest of the criteria as set forth at WP:NACADEMIC. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight: I disagree entirely with your claim that "There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Numerous of the articles above are related to the EF5 drought study led by Mr. Lyza. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire section just about Mr. Lyza's study: EF5 drought#January 2025 study. Regarding the EF5 study led by Lyza, I can find [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. All of those sources are specifically in regards to the study produced by Lyza. Could you go into more detail and explain why ypu believe the EF5 study discussed by all of these RS do not provide such evidence? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What changed after they published their study? What "significant impacts" were there after they published their study? It's nice and all that the sources covered the study, but they don't provide evidence that it had a "significant impact" in "their scholarly discipline". For example, if there is evidence that this study led to a reform of the Enhanced Fujita scale in regards to rating tornadoes, or maybe something changed within the field of tornadoes, meteorology... that would fulfil the first criterion. But as of yet, it's probably too early to tell and it seems that most of the coverage is on the study than the authors themselves. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that the EF5 drought is just a small trend in the greater subject of tornado climatology, so one study analyzing this subject in-depth wouldn't equate to "significant impact" across meteorology. Not yet, anyway. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, while it is relatively benign with general meteorology (the NWS is likely choosing to ignore it), the general public and public media have definitely picked up on it. But yes, the Lyza drought study isn't super significant in the field, mainly outlining the reasoning, which is already well-known (survey ignorance). — EF5 (questions?) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under that logic, the shift focuses from academic notability to public interest and we run back into GNG arguments again. While the EF5 drought is notable and Lyza's study of it helps demonstrate that, it doesn't itself make Lyza himself notable. Departure– (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the general rules of WP:NPROF should apply here just as well, for example "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." should apply to meteorology as to any other discipline. Maybe your argument is that the independent reliable sources here should not be Google Scholar but something else? --hroest 15:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal published by a predatory publisher that has not been discussed in any capacity by independent sources and is not indexed by any selective databases. There was some previous discussion regarding the journal (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_6#Keep_or_delete_this_journal?) but it has since been delisted from MEDLINE (NCBI) and Index Medicus (MIAR) with little fanfare. -- Reconrabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Science. -- Reconrabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I debated with myself whether a redirect to Predatory publishing or Beall's list is a reasonable alternative, but I think a K.I.S.S. deletion is simplest. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could only see redirecting being appropriate if American Scientific Publishers was a blue link. List of MDPI academic journals exists after all. -- Reconrabbit 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the independent sources (about its predatory nature/delisting) provide the significant depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG notability. WP:ITSUSEFUL to have a page warning us that this is not a high-quality journal but that's not an adequate reason for a keep, and there is no likely redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's stated here that the journal Ceased publication in 2021, which seems to be accurate based on the fact that their website also has no new articles after December 2021. Nobody (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't often use the word "strong" before either keep or delete, but here I strongly feel that this discussion is going in the wrong direction. This journal was included in Scopus from 2001 to 2017. That alone we usually take as sufficient to establish notability. It was also included in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 2002 to 2019. There was an expression of concern that the journal had been guilty of citation stacking in 2017, but apparently they cleaned up their act in the next year (current reference 5). Again, listing in the SCIE of almost the complete run of the journal (discontinued in 2021) is generally taken as sufficient evidence of notability. And then there is MEDLINE in which the complete run of the journal was "selectively included", as well as in its even more selective sub-database Index Medicus. Again, this alone we usually take as evidence of notability. Finally, notability is not temporary, so the fact that the journal was discontinued is immaterial. BTW, as an aside: our article states that the journal "was delisted from Web of Science in the 2019 index,[5] after having received an expression of concern a year earlier." In fact, the expression of concern explicitly states "The Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology did not show evidence of anomalous patterns of citation in 2018 and will not be suppressed. Similar analysis of year-to-date 2019 indicated no continuation of the citation anomalies, so that the journals will not be removed from indexing in Web of Science at this time." --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't certain about the original nomination because of the implication that it was at some point in the past indexed by Index Medicus, but the lack of information on MIAR and the generally negative slant of the article, short as it is, placed me in the position of nominating this for deletion. That and endorsement by other editors. The evidence here is convincing of the "selectively indexed" criteria. I withdraw my personal reasoning for deletion, particularly with the scopus indexing I missed but as there are others that have recommended deletion this won't be a close. -- Reconrabbit 01:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the strong evidence presented by Randykitty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science&oldid=1287767194"